At odds over weapons and roads

When reading the letters in the Kent Messenger May 5, I found myself at odds with two contributors:

Firstly, Jim Pragnell of Otford in stating that he would never vote for any Prime Minister that is prepared to press the nuclear button, displays a misunderstanding of the concept of our nuclear deterrent.

Its very existence is a deterrent in itself; it’s there, ongoing, every minute of every hour of every day, year after year, but can only be effective if our Prime Minister clearly states that their position is, if necessary, they would be prepared to use it.

Conversely, if a potential Prime Minister declares beforehand that he or she would never press the button, whatever the circumstances, then the deterrent effect is negated and undermined. The impact of actual use of nuclear weapons would be catastrophic, but we are where we are.

Secondly, Pete O’Keefe of unknown address is being somewhat disingenuous in trying to make a case for forcing everyone else into the inside lane of a three lane motorway by suggesting drivers in the outside lane are doing 67mph (conveniently just three miles below the legal speed limit) when he must know that simply isn’t the case.

Controversy about which lane a driver should use has got worse since the ridiculous offence of so called ‘middle lane hogging’ was enacted.

Already I can hear the howls of protest but I pose this question: If I’m driving at 70mph in the middle lane of a three lane carriageway when the nearside lane is empty and you come up behind me flashing me to pull over, if you were not exceeding the speed limit, how did you catch me up? Christopher Hudson-Gool Sutton Road, Maidstone